Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-28-2007, 10:34 PM

Richard Carrier has finished the first draft of his PhD thesis and will soon be a fully qualified professional in a relevant field.

Otherwise, this thread is veering off into a pointless repetition of points that have already been made.

I would join with Mr. Antipope in asking aa5874 to drop this broken-record repetition of the son of a Ghost line, at least until you can say something new or relevant. Yes, we know that the earliest surviving sources say that Jesus was the product of a supernatural birth; but we also know that the early church was not unanimous on the question of the nature of the Savior.

Antipope Innocent II · 10-28-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Richard Carrier has finished the first draft of his PhD thesis and will soon be a fully qualified professional in a relevant field.

That will make him qualified, certainly. Doesn't Doherty have postgrad qualifications in Classics as well? And apparently Gandy has an M.A. also (or so we're told).

But we're talking about professional scholars, not just people who have some relevant post-grad degrees. When Carrier gets a research or teaching position at an accredited university and starts publishing some MJ stuff in academic journals he'll be on the same level as the "HJer" scholars in the field.

Until then he's a dabbler. A far better qualified dabbler than the "Acharya S"s and Freke and Gandys of the world and certainly far more worth paying some attention to, but a dabbler nonetheless.

Just as I have post-grad qualificaitons in Medieval literature and am nothing more than a dabbler in that field.

Toto · 10-28-2007, 11:23 PM

Who would you consider to be an HJ'er with comparable qualifications?

eta - by which I mean someone who has actually addressed the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure, as opposed to just assumed it.

Antipope Innocent II · 10-29-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Who would you consider to be an HJ'er with comparable qualifications?

Of comparable qualifications to who?

Quote:

eta - by which I mean someone who has actually addressed the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure, as opposed to just assumed it.

Are you telling me there are no people with relevant PhDs (I'm assuming here you mean comparable with Carrier) who have considered the MJ concept and rejected it?

youngalexander · 10-29-2007, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Richard Carrier has finished the first draft of his PhD thesis and will soon be a fully qualified professional in a relevant field.

Ahh, the first draft. Trouble is, once he reads it (& even worse, once his supervisor reads it) then he'll have to go back and fill in all the cavities!?

Which I am sure that he will accomplish splendidly.:jump:

PhilosopherJay · 10-29-2007, 06:19 AM

Hi Antipope Innocent,

In line with what Toto has said, can you give a list of the relevant fields. I suspect that many who have written on an Historical Jesus would not make the cut either.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "professional academic."

I mean someone with relevant qualifications working in a field relevant to the subject of the origins of Christianity with a teaching or research position at an accredited university and publishing peer reviewed material in academic fora.

Not self-declared scholars, guys with an M.A. and a bit of time on their hands, self-published enthusiasts or New Age kooks with a website. These lists of "scholars" who don't believe Yeshua existed remind me of Creationists' lists of "scientists" who don't accept evolution. Once you winnow out the pretenders, the amateurs and the guys from other disciplines poaching out of field you end up with ... not much.

Well, so their promotional material tells us. I've never been able to work out where Gandy did his MA, for example. Not that it matters much. I have an MA in Medieval Literature but I'd never dream of calling myself a "scholar" in that field. I'm just an amateur with some pretty solid credentials and knowledge. If I was making a living in a teaching or research position and publishing in peer-reviewed journals I'd be a scholar. Gandy is no more a "scholar" than I am.

Apparently not.

Then I'd pay some attention to him on the subjects of biology and geology. And anyone with a credit card and a spare $65 can become a member of the Society of Biblical Literature - it's not like that's an achievement.

As a professional academic in Philosophy? Sure. Just not as a professional academic in any field relevant to the origins of Christianity.

Yes, that would be a bit narrow.

Quote:

but only slightly more absurd than demanding specific academic degrees and a certain academic status from proponents of a Jesus Myth theory in order to take them seriously.

We can still take amateurs seriously. Where did I say otherwise? I've read Doherty's stuff several times and took it seriously (I just found it contrived and unconvincing, that's all). The point is that few of them fit the quitre reasonable criteria for a professional academic in a relevant field. Only two of them do so that I can see: Price and Thompson.

PhilosopherJay · 10-29-2007, 09:57 AM

Hi Zeichman,

Thanks for your opinions.

Alvar Ellegard proposes that the Essene's "Teacher of Righteousness" who lived in the early First Century B.C.E. was the model for Jesus the Christ in the gopels. The position certainly implies that the Jesus of Nazareth character who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, is a myth or a primarily literary creation.

I may hold the position that the James Bond character is based on the historical writer Somerset Maugham. It would be quite misleading to interpret this as saying that I hold the position that James Bond is an actually living historical person. In the same way I have proposed that the crucifixion scenes in the gospels may be material from a play that may be referring to the actual execution of a son of a Jewish High Priest. The play may be referring to an actual event that happened, but that does not commit me to holding the position that the lead character in the play, the crucified man, was an historical man.

In the same way, I think because Ellegard does not regard Jesus as an historical man living in the time of Pontius Pilate, we may regard his position as within the mythicist camp. I would also add Michael O. Wise who wrote "The First Messiah" and holds a similar position to Ellegard, as being in the mythicist camp, if not a pure mythicist.

So my list now runs:

1) Wells, 2) Price, 3) Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Antipope Innocent,

To 1) Wells, 2) Price, 3) Thompson, should we not add these present scholars: 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner

Are you serious? Micheal Turton? Wells? Zindler? Hardly "scholars" as traditionally defined. I don't think Doughty committed to ahistoricity, and I KNOW Ellegard did not. These lists are pure wishful thinking. Not just any jackass who has posted something on the internet or written some dubious book or article on the topic is a "scholar." Get a couple of degrees and then you can call yourself that. You're discrediting yourself by making this almost completely inaccurate list.

Toto · 10-29-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Who would you consider to be an HJ'er with comparable qualifications?

Of comparable qualifications to who?

Quote:

eta - by which I mean someone who has actually addressed the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure, as opposed to just assumed it.

Are you telling me there are no people with relevant PhDs (I'm assuming here you mean comparable with Carrier) who have considered the MJ concept and rejected it?

You tell me - you're the one who claims that there is scholarly support for the HJ position. Can you name one with a PhD in ancient history who has used historical methods?

The most famous historicist I have read who tried to show that Jesus existed was R.T. France, who, in response to a BBC program gathered up all the evidences for a HJ and wrote The Evidence for Jesus. We discussed that very slim volume here in 2003.

The interesting thing is that France reviews all of the non-Christian historical evidence and rejects its validity as historical evidence. He thinks that Josephus probably mentioned Jesus, but that is as far as he will go. He then tries to make the case that the gospels are sufficient evidence. But his defense of this is utterly and completely unconvincing, and his language seems to make it clear that believers don't need real historical confirmation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RT France

The basic divide among interpreters of the gospels is not between those who are or are not open to the results of historical investigations so much as between those whose philosophical/theological viewpoint allows them to accept the testimony of the gospels, together with the factuality of the records in which it is enshrined, and those for whom no amount of historical testimony could be allowed to substantiate what is antecedently labelled as a 'mythical' account of events.

For those who are open to the historical possibility of the 'supernatural' dimension of the gospel accounts, they offer not a detailed list in chronological order of all that Jesus said and did, but a rich collection of events and sayings which need not be doubted as accurate memories of what actually happened. . .

Excuse me, but I live in Southern California, and when I hear people talk about being "open" to something, I can expect to hear the next sentence describe some UFO appearance or new age marketing scam that works if you really believe in it and don't let those skeptics destroy the power of your mind to shape reality.

No Robots · 10-29-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Excuse me, but I live in Southern California, and when I hear people talk about being "open" to something, I can expect to hear the next sentence describe some UFO appearance or new age marketing scam that works if you really believe in it and don't let those skeptics destroy the power of your mind to shape reality.

Where the hell's the favorites button on this board?

Antipope Innocent II · 10-29-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Are you telling me there are no people with relevant PhDs (I'm assuming here you mean comparable with Carrier) who have considered the MJ concept and rejected it?

You tell me - you're the one who claims that there is scholarly support for the HJ position.

There's lots. Of course, while there are the grand total of TWO scholars in the Jesus Myth camp, you can't be too surprised that no-one is bothering to waste their time debunking such a tiny, fringe idea.

Quote:

Can you name one with a PhD in ancient history who has used historical methods?

To dismiss the Jesus Myth hypothesis?

Quote:

The most famous historicist I have read who tried to show that Jesus existed was R.T. France, who, in response to a BBC program gathered up all the evidences for a HJ and wrote The Evidence for Jesus.

Was he a non-Christian?

And if only two actual scholars take this Jesus Myth seriously, are you surprised no-one is bothering to waste their time debunking it? Only one actual scholar takes old Barbara Thiering's kooky pesher technique seriously (Babs herself). So not surprisingly no-one has bothered writing a book debunking that one either.

Maybe if Carrier manages to get his PhD and actually publishes something on the Jesus Myth idea in a peer reviewed publication the scholarly world might bother to cock an eyebrow at this tiny fringe idea. Maybe. While it remains the domain of internet kooks and self-published enthusiasts, you can reasonably expect it to remain richly ignored.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2007, 10:34 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Richard Carrier has finished the first draft of his PhD thesis and will soon be a fully qualified professional in a relevant field. Otherwise, this thread is veering off into a pointless repetition of points that have already been made. I would join with Mr. Antipope in asking aa5874 to drop this broken-record repetition of the son of a Ghost line, at least until you can say something new or relevant. Yes, we know that the earliest surviving sources say that Jesus was the product of a supernatural birth; but we also know that the early church was not unanimous on the question of the nature of the Savior.

10-28-2007, 11:23 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Who would you consider to be an HJ'er with comparable qualifications? eta - by which I mean someone who has actually addressed the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure, as opposed to just assumed it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.